Scrutinizing the Singapore governmenthttps://sgpublicpolicy.wordpress.com
Virtual check & balance on SG governmentMon, 10 Apr 2017 11:26:33 +0000enhourly1http://wordpress.com/https://s2.wp.com/i/buttonw-com.pngScrutinizing the Singapore governmenthttps://sgpublicpolicy.wordpress.com
The Privilegedhttps://sgpublicpolicy.wordpress.com/2013/12/02/the-privileged/
https://sgpublicpolicy.wordpress.com/2013/12/02/the-privileged/#respondMon, 02 Dec 2013 07:09:30 +0000http://sgpublicpolicy.wordpress.com/?p=1074]]>Nice post. Among the privileged in Singapore, I could be one of them, considering I have a roof over my head and had a university education, overseas exposure and currently works in a nice company. Among the rest of world, the PAP government officials are definitely one of the most privileged. Read on:

I’m a hugely privileged person. Almost all the advantages that can be bestowed upon someone in our society have been bestowed upon me. I was brought up in a family for which money wasn’t really an issue. I lived in a nice place – in leafy, privileged Cambridge – and went to very good schools. State schools, as it happens, but in Cambridge the state schools are remarkably good, and Hills Road Sixth Form College, where I did my A Levels, can compete at an academic level with pretty much all the ‘top’ public schools in the country. I went to Cambridge University. I’m male. I’m white. I’m straight. I’ve always been able to find jobs. I’m married, have a child, have a great job, own a nice home, I’m able-bodied, not suffering from mental health problems and reasonably healthy. I tick almost all the right boxes – and have all the advantages.

Many more advantages, indeed, than some people seem to want to acknowledge. I grew up in a remarkable family – one of the reasons I felt compelled to write this piece is that tomorrow is the memorial for my father, Martin Bernal, who was himself a quite remarkable man – academic, author, folk singer, campaigner etc.. He died in the summer, and over the last few months I’ve been thinking a lot about what I got from having him as a father – and indeed from having so many interesting people around me so much of my life. It was and is an immense privilege. I grew up in a household where we were expected to read, to learn, to question. We were listened to – well, most of the time – and were given a huge amount of freedom, and included in fascinating conversations. I was instilled with confidence and with a sense that pretty much anything was possible.

These kinds of things matter – they add a huge, extra layer of advantage to the more tangible ones that wealth so directly provides. They open doors for you – doors that are generally already pretty much ajar to the privileged but shut, locked and bolted against anyone else. They make it far, far easier to take advantage of opportunities – and when you add it to the safety nets that wealth and connections provide they make life much, much easier.

And yet, somehow, a great many people who are privileged seem to forget this – indeed, they seem to think exactly the opposite. They convince themselves that they have made successes of their lives from raw talent and intelligence and that everyone else who hasn’t succeeded must have failed either because they’re too stupid – as the recent speech of Boris Johnson seems to suggest – or too lazy (as the whole ‘strivers vs scroungers’ agenda supposes) or because they’ve made terrible decisions, can’t budget and so forth.

I understand some of where they’re coming from. There’s no doubt in my mind that intelligence plays a part in all this – but the part it plays is vastly overstated, and what exactly ‘intelligence’ means is much harder to describe or measure than people seem to think. I know I’m intelligent by the kind of standards that Boris uses – I have a degree in mathematics and a PhD in law – but I also know that this ‘intelligence’ hasn’t been the most important thing in the way that opportunities have come up for me. I know for example that having the words ‘Cambridge University’ on my CV make people more willing to read further. I know that my family name has made some people in academia more interested in what I do. More than anything else, though, I know that society is ‘designed’ to let ‘people like me’ succeed.

Three shocks…

Three events in my twenties put a lot of this into context for me, and have changed the way I’ve looked at things. The first was when I was an accountant, working for one of the biggest accountancy firms in the City of London, in the late 80s. The height of Thatcherism, when greed was certainly seen as good. We’d had a good ‘busy season’, but after a merger of firms I found myself denied a promotion – as did everyone else in my cohort, or so we were told. When I found out that this wasn’t true, and that one person (who happened to have very good connections) had been given this promotion, I was outraged, and started digging around to find out what was going on. I asked all my contemporaries what had happened to them – had they been promoted, what ‘rating’ had they got, how much were they paid and so on. I soon found something much more outrageous than my petty jealousy about having been denied a promotion: every single woman was paid less than every single man. To put it another way, the best paid woman was on a lower salary than the worst paid man. Now this wasn’t anything to do with merit – I’d worked with most of the people, and I knew very well that however you decided to measure things this could not possibly be right. What made it even worse was that when I confronted the partner (male, public school and Oxbridge) about it, he said ‘why do you care, you’re a man’ or words to that effect. That this made me even angrier – and meant my leaving the firm was inevitable – seemed to be close to incomprehensible to him.

The second was in Burma – I was visiting the country in 1991, soon after leaving my accountancy job, at a time when the government was at its most oppressive and repressive. I had got in on a semi-diplomatic visa (through connections(!)) and was able to visit much more of the country than the usual tourist packages – travelling up to Mandalay and being shown around the place by a group of young Burmese people, introduced to me through my connections. They’d never met me, but I had never encountered such welcoming, interested, open and even happy people in my life. I had three or four days with them and it changed my outlook on life forever. I had been feeling rather sorry for myself and depressed – but when I looked at these people, living under one of the most repressive governments on the planet, with little opportunity for any of the things that we take for granted, and found that they were able to be so open and welcoming I thought I was being ridiculous. If they can find a way to be happy and interested, how can I possibly be so selfish and self-indulgent myself? When I found out after I returned to the UK that pretty much everyone seen talking to me in Burma – and that would have been most of them, since Burmese military intelligence had spies everywhere – was taken in for questioning after the event, my respect for them grew even more.

The third was a year or two later, when I was helping out with a ‘peace conference’ for children, in Lillehammer in Norway. We had kids from many, many countries, each with an adult accompanying them. One afternoon, our hosts, Redd Barna Norway (their version of Save the Children) arranged a session for the adult chaperones from the African countries. There were about 30 of them, from memory, from all over Africa. The question the Norwegians asked was ‘how can we help you?’ It was all very well-meaning, but when I saw the faces of the audience, I was surprised – and when I heard the answers they gave even more so. It wasn’t ‘give us more aid’ or ‘send us more machinery’ or ‘give us training in medicine’ or anything like that. It was, instead, simple and unequivocal: leave us alone. We don’t want your aid – and we don’t want your multinationals taking over our country, your arms companies selling weapons to our governments and the various opposition groups. Leave us alone. The hosts were shocked – but every single one of the representatives said the same. I’m not suggesting they were ‘right’, or that this was in any way a representative sample, but the event still shocked me. Our patronising paternalism was not what was wanted – and we had to think all over again.

What does this mean?

When I read about Boris’s speech, and when I think about all the patronising, elitist, offensive stuff that this government and pretty much every government I can remember have said, it makes me angry. Things like accusing poor people of not knowing how to budget, how to cook, how to feed their kids, how to make good decisions, or of being lazy, stupid etc. Suggestions from ministers that they could easily live on the amounts people get in benefits. Suggestions that people don’t try hard enough to get jobs. Suggestions that they don’t work hard enough. They all make me angry – and they make it clear to me that most of those speaking don’t know how privileged they are – and what the consequences of that privilege are.

For me, there are a few things that I try to remember. The first is the most obvious – that I’m deeply privileged and deeply lucky. The second is that I still don’t know quite how privileged and lucky I am – because so much of the privilege is hidden and built into the system, so much that those who are privileged can’t see it. Until I asked, I never realised that all the women were being paid less than all the men. Until I went to Burma and met those Burmese people I didn’t realise how it was possible not to feel sorry for yourself for the smallest thing. Until I listened to the African people at the conference, I didn’t realise quite how many assumptions I was making about how to solve the world’s problems.

That, in the end, is the most important thing. Whoever you are, however intelligent and enlightened you are, you don’t know what life is like for other people. You don’t know how things are for them, how hard it is for them. I don’t know what it is like to be really poor, for example. I’ve been poor – but I’ve been poor and still known I have family that would support me in the end, that I have the kind of education and experience that can help me out, that I’m healthy and so forth. Men don’t know what it’s like to be women. Straight men don’t know what it’s like to be gay in the society we have today. Able-bodied people don’t know what it’s like to have a disability. White people don’t know what it is like to be black. Wealthy people don’t know what it’s like to be poor.

There’s an old saying: ‘with great power comes great responsibility’. There’s a degree to which it’s true, and it certainly seems that the current lot of powerful people are thoroughly irresponsible. I’d like to add another – though it’s deeply wishful thinking. With great privilege should come great humility. Those of us who are privileged – like me, and like Boris – should be able to find that humility. To know that we really don’t know what it’s like to live without our privilege. We can try to imagine – but we’ll never really succeed. And we should know that we’ll never really succeed – and be far, far more willing to listen properly to those who do know it. Most of all, though, we should know when not to talk as though we had all the answers. We should know when to shut up.

]]>https://sgpublicpolicy.wordpress.com/2013/12/02/the-privileged/feed/0analyst70Hypocrisyhttps://sgpublicpolicy.wordpress.com/2013/07/25/hypocrisy/
https://sgpublicpolicy.wordpress.com/2013/07/25/hypocrisy/#respondThu, 25 Jul 2013 16:36:50 +0000http://sgpublicpolicy.wordpress.com/?p=976]]>There, I’ve said it. The H-word. In view of the scandals involving high ranking officials, and the increasingly extremist methods in suppressing alternative voices in the virtual community, I felt a burning need for netizens to be more vociferous in their views. How is it that the government can never understand the meaning of 2-way dialogue? How is it that they can never be honest and fair (or even attempting to show case they are)? Every election, new pools of young, internet savvy citizens participate in their citizen right of voting while the older generation gives way. This group of citizens is most likely to be heavily influenced by online media with an almost guaranteed dislike for autocratic methods and unfairness. Instead of the great opportunity in showcasing their honest explanation that could have earn them some points, all they know is throwing legal suits while not doing much explanation. How do you expect people to be convinced? Has the PAP government been fair and honest? I leave it to you to decide on the following events:

1) The Straits Times editor Warren Fernandez was only let off with a ‘stern’ warning after many, many months of investigation (that really let me doubt the efficiency of our police force) for publishing a poll on the results of the General Election on Cooling Day, when it is by law unlawful to comment. However, a fellow netizen was criminalized for a similar act (and this time the police took a much, much shorter time to solve. Any reason for this?). If I am to do something similar to what Warren Fernandez had done, what do you think will happen to me? So my questions to the government are: What is the difference between the 2 cases? In view of the wider reach of audience the Straits Times has and the professionalism expected of a national and responsible newspaper, wouldn’t the act by Warren Fernandez warrant a greater offense? And why did the police force took such a long time to conclude their ‘investigation’ for Warren Fernandez? Is it that complicated? Is it due to the incompetence of the force? Or is it due to other reasons that the government has?

2) When we have more scandals of the public service involving hundreds of millions of tax payers money, why is the government attempting to undermine the crimes? The Straits Times reported that a report will be made public to show that the number of fraud cases by public servants are ‘consistent’ throughout the years. To me, if each scandal is to involve so much money, one fraud is one too many. Lee Kwan Yew said before that he has absolutely ZERO tolerance for corruption. As such, should we even tolerate a single case? Sure, there’s always the ‘human is prone to error and temptation’ reasoning but please don’t even bring this up. By bringing this up, it only goes to show the lack of sincerity and resoluteness in admitting to the incompetence of the government. As a citizen who pays taxes, I am not interested in the ‘consistency’ of fraud cases involving public service officials. I am more interested in how can this be solved, how can monetary control issues be tightened, and whether the money lost can be recovered.

If the number of fraud cases are ‘consistent’ over a number of years, it only meant one thing. There are loopholes in the system and the government had failed to tightened it throughout the years. This spells incompetence. I mean, what else can it imply? Why would any company or organization continue to allow such frauds to happen over and over again? Is it because the ministers don’t feel the pinch since they continue to collect their millions?

Don’t go around defending saying there is nothing the minister can do. If there are loopholes, only the ones at the ministerial level can tighten, especially when the recent cases involve the top officials of various agencies, including the supposedly upholder of justice CPIB. Unless of course, they can well benefit from these loopholes as well. As the ones overseeing the government, the ministers have the responsibility to look into this issue to ensure such cases do not happen again. Isn’t there supposed to be some kind of multiple approvals and controls when it comes to money? And most importantly, why isn’t such fraud uncovered during audits by the AGO?

3) Carry on to what the AGO has done, it is reported that there are multiple issues with money (again) concerning multiple agencies. So what if the report is published? Some, like the National Research Fund or NRF simply release a statement saying controls will be tightened. That’s all? Given the huge amount of money involve, shouldn’t a more detailed investigation be carried out and punishments executed accordingly? All these issues are obviously due to lax controls and irresponsibility of the personnel involve. This is especially important in light of the recent fraud cases.

One of the issues includes unauthorized payments from the Pension fund by MINDEF!! While it is stated the money is restored to the fund, where did that money came from then? Another point reads the Ministry of Foreign Affairs failing to check the reasonable of prices quoted for some security services, which resulted in over payment due to ‘tight timeline’. Such a reason is not a good explanation. Is this how taxpayer’s money shall be spent? Freely spending without a care in the world and no checks and balances? How many more fraud cases could there be uncovered? Mind you, the report states problems not with just one or two or even three agencies. The problems spread across multiple government agencies like virus in stage 4 cancer. To be fair, I applaud the AGO for publishing their findings.

Reading into the report only makes my blood boils. Overpayment of this, over valuation that. All these money wasted simply the government don’t care how they spend! I am not surprised how much money Vivian Balakrishnan had overspent for the YOG given the incompetence in procurement and spending. When you have a budget, you KEEP to the budget. What’s the use of a budget if you overblown it at such an astronomical rate? Has a detailed audit been done on the YOG?

All these examples involves a lot of public money (hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars) that could have been put to better use. As a citizen who pays tax (yet again), I demand more transparency in this issue. I also demand that the government take a serious look into their lax spending habits and lousy monetary controls. Or is it because the agencies are headed by multiple ministers and senior civil servants that made them immune to the rules of law? The silence of the government is unsettling. Before the PAP government/ AGO even wish to accuse netizens of wrongful accusation, maybe they should first be more forthcoming in their explanation. That is, if they even care to explain.

]]>https://sgpublicpolicy.wordpress.com/2013/07/25/hypocrisy/feed/0analyst70Petty politicshttps://sgpublicpolicy.wordpress.com/2013/07/10/petty-politics/
https://sgpublicpolicy.wordpress.com/2013/07/10/petty-politics/#commentsWed, 10 Jul 2013 17:12:07 +0000http://sgpublicpolicy.wordpress.com/?p=934]]>It’s been a good 5 months since I last post. For one, work is heavy. For two, age is catching up. There has been many issues for the past 5 months. Some issue like the monitoring of the internet I didn’t bother to write. Many has been written and if the PAP government thinks they can control the internet or control what the people is reading online, or if they think that their little laws can extend beyond our shores, I wish them good luck.

What is more amusing to me is how the little issue of spring cleaning erupted into a 90s comedy that is being played on youtube and facebook with Vivian Balakrishnan as our male lead. Watching the youtube video, I gathered poor Mr Vivian Balakrishnan must have suffered much from the recent haze. Much of his brain cells must have died. If not, how else is such an ‘elite’ incapable of stringing a coherent argument, or even the basic ability in replying what was being asked, something even my 2 year old niece is able to? What I deduce is confused, self-high moral, and simply pure stupidity. All I see is Vivian Balakrishnan throwing his own little show without showing any evidence to back his accusations and at the same time claiming he has evidence. A big question mark hangs on my head. Or maybe as an elite, his argument logic has proved too deep for understanding.

This episode, however, highlights the danger of a domineering old political party that has obviously lost touch and sense. It is no secret many of the MPs that the PAP roped in is incapable of decent public speaking. Now we have a full minister that is making a clown out of himself and the party. Many of my foreign friends had asked me “So what is your minister talking about? Is he even responding to the counter argument at all? And what is all that hoo-ha on cleaning issues in an eatery? Isn’t there bigger issues like the haze and that dengue epidemic?”. It’s embarrassing on so many levels. So much time and effort spent on discrediting the opposition party when bigger problems loomed. It’s a disgrace to the country and a disgrace to me as the citizen of this nation.

Once upon a time, the PAP stands for hope. Now, it has degraded to playing political ploys to save their own little skin. The very same political games the PAP had accused an increasing opposition party in parliament would flare up during the last election, the PAP themselves are the ones doing it. And the more they play it up, the more their insecurity and incapability are brought to public view. What a ‘petty’.

]]>https://sgpublicpolicy.wordpress.com/2013/07/10/petty-politics/feed/1analyst70White Paper…Ooo very scaryhttps://sgpublicpolicy.wordpress.com/2013/02/06/white-paper-ooo-very-scary/
https://sgpublicpolicy.wordpress.com/2013/02/06/white-paper-ooo-very-scary/#commentsWed, 06 Feb 2013 16:25:58 +0000http://sgpublicpolicy.wordpress.com/?p=914]]>First of all, forgive me for the rather messy write up of this post. It’s long and in no way coherent as I dropped my thinking over different periods of time and I’m too tired to piece them all together. Nor do I have time to clean up any grammar mistakes. Pardon me.

When I saw the 6.9 million figure on local media, the first thing that struck my mind is some old marketing technique of using .90 to price any value giving one the illusion that the White Paper projects to 6.9 million when the actual figure the PAP government is aiming for is 7 million. It’s not 6, but 7, SEVEN million. That adds an additional 1.7, or if I too use the marketing technique of rounding up, it’s adding 2 million or 2/5 of the current population, entirely via importing labor.

7 million-population target

Do not be mistaken. The figure of 7 million is a target despite some minister claiming that it is just ‘worse-case scenario’ planning. Do you think the government will actually over build houses and facilities and risk over-supply that will push Singapore into deflation? That contradicts the PAP policy of ‘ensure gradual increase in house prices to build up every citizen’s asset value.’

What is not that obvious to me is the government’s insistent that we need a younger workforce to support the increasing group of retiring work force. Singapore does not have a pension system, unlike many other countries. The amount spent on medical care is by far one of the least per capita in comparison with other developed economies. That suggested there is more room for the government to allocate their resources in. In case someone is to argue that I am just being wasteful, aren’t the nation’s reserve always ‘prudently’ invested via GIC and Temasek? Is too careful not as bad as too wasteful? Frankly, I have no answer to this, and this has always been a question I ponder.

The government locks up a major portion of the citizen’s salary to prepare for old age, of which huge part is locked in housing; while at the same time provide cheap financing to the government. The only way to unlock the value is to downgrade your house in your old age. The government went on to make it unlawful for children not to take care of their aging parents. Through these schemes, the PAP government had managed to extract full economic benefit from a person’s prime life and minimize responsibility and burden when an economic digit becomes redundant. Not that it’s a bad thing from the government’s point of view. It’s entirely efficient and effective.

Even if we need to equalize the retiring group of workers, why is not the government aiming for growth to stabilize the population figures at today’s population? A plan to take in 30,000 immigrants and granting freely the seemingly increasingly worthless Singapore citizenship to 25,000 every year and growing the population to 7 million sounds more like a plan to increase the population instead of stabilizing.

Many people also question: so what’s next after 2030? The current absorption of immigrants will also mean a larger base of retirees in the future. Never mind how some minister insist some of these ‘productive young labor imports’ will eventually go back to their country. The fact that 25,000 Singaporeans are being minted (with a high probability of being recruited when they are quite young therefore economically valuable to the PAP government) will enlarge the aging base.

On the idea of conspiracy theory (one can’t blame citizens for being imaginative given how lack of transparent the PAP is) that I heard and would like to share: Could this be because the PAP is afraid of a major redemption of cash from the CPF when the Baby Boomers retire and they simply do not have enough money left after all the losses, and therefore have to resort to minting more citizens and lock up more money in CPF to pay the Baby Boomers? Coffee shop/taxi talk sessions can be pretty amusing at times.

Economic structure

Today while watching TV, I almost puked on my dinner when I saw Mr Khaw ‘pleading earnestly’ in Parliament that Singaporeans need houses and he needs all these extra foreign workers to build enough homes fast enough; insinuating that the Worker’s Party proposal to cut down foreign workers is working against Singaporeans, therefore suggesting the Worker’s Party must be the bad guy. It’s so badly acted and hypocritical it reminds me of some character in those Canto serial dramas.

The problem is, Mr Khaw doesn’t really need that many workers to build houses. It is an all too common problem in Singapore. So long as you can get along with cheap labor, you continue to do so. It’s easy to hire and fire, and you have no responsibility on them since they are usually contracted from some other sources. The construction industry continues to be built on cheap labor. So cheap they can afford to hire an army of them to build houses. They are such cheap commodity some unscrupulous contractors wouldn’t even provide decent housing and sufficient safety measures. So much for the much hyped productivity drive announced by the Prime Minister last year; the one area the government had failed miserably and looks too half-hearted to continue pursing. All they can do is lament they have allocated the money there and companies are not improving fast enough.

I have mentioned before productivity is the only way Singapore can continue to pull itself up the economic ladder. We have no resources to begin with and the only resources we have are people. Our physical capital (ie land) is being stretched to the limits (I do worry for the next generation), the country had done all it can to move up the high-value chain. The only problem is, we are simply not productive enough. Among the developed countries, Singapore does not rank high in terms of productivity. You do not see an army working on a construction site in the United States. Nor do you see that in Japan. What you see is much smaller group of efficient, highly professional, highly paid construction professionals, creating living spaces from stretch. That’s how technology came into play.

It’s only via higher productivity can one hope to see real gains in wages, with the bonus of not requiring so many workers.

Politics

Politically, this almost guarantees the PAP government an additional 25,000 votes every year. And most people on the anti-PAP camp would readily link the White Paper to political ploy. But it’s worth a thought. Sure, some supporters might argue that not every new citizen minted will be of eligible age to vote. Taking a leaf out from the government, I am presenting numbers at it’s worst case scenario. Since every GE is conducted after 5 years, the PAP will garner an additional 75,000 votes by 2016 and adds 125,000 votes for every GE thereafter. By 2030, PAP will push up an additional 450,000 votes. Yes, that is equivalent to another major GRC. Given the PAP’s habit of cutting up the GRC as and when they deem fit, they can easily spread out these imported voters to opposition wards. Punggol is one new town waiting to be developed (ie adding more people into the area).

“Besides creating new towns, mature estates will also be rejuvenated while existing towns like Punggol will also continue to be developed.

When completed, Punggol will become one of the largest HDB towns in Singapore with 96,000 units, three times its current size.”

Lack of consultation on major issues & the existence of useless MPs

Population planning affects every one in the country. The PAP had shrewdly avoided releasing the White Paper before the Punggol election for fear of a backlash. Right after the release, expectedly the local media came on full blast in defending the white paper, publishing ‘feel-good’ reports that is meaningless (http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1251338/1/.html) and attempts to brainwash the citizens into believing that the PAP government is trying to do some good.

It’s foreseeable that the PAP government will debate in Parliament, put on a show that there’s discussion, and continue to move on. In fact, we have seen old horses Mr Goh Chok Tong and (oh my gosh, I thought he’d gone on a long vacation since last GE) Mr Mah Bow Tan coming forward to support the White Paper. This is what happens when the parliament is overwhelmingly controlled by one political party of yes men and women, that is severely over-represented in parliament given they only got 65% of the votes but dominates more than 90% in parliamentary seats.

For the one last time, can the PAP stop framing the opposition’s plan as having ZERO foreign workers or not granting any more PR or citizenship? It’s dumb and stupid and totally lack respect. MPs such as Vikram Nair and Janil Puthucheary should simply keep their mouth shut if they have no constructive replies. Trying to argue on extreme lines benefit neither side and only aims to corner the opponent simply because it’s nonsensical to argue from extremes in the first place. It shows desire to win argument, lack of maturity, simply lack depth and childish. I can argue back in their extreme point of view: So Mr Vikram and Janil, do you have foreign masters to report to rather than pledging allegiance to the Singapore flag since you love anything foreign so much? Especially when Mr Janil was not local born to begin with?

[Quote from CNA: Mr Chen was challenged by PAP MPs Vikram Nair (Sembawang GRC) and Janil Puthucheary (Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC), who asked if the WP is proposing not having any foreign labour in Singapore at all, and if the Aljunied-Hougang Town Council employs foreign workers.]

They are advocating (like me, and many others) to slow down population growth. Not zero. I can imagine how frustrating it can get sometimes for the opposition to debate even gentlemanly with cowards who can’t answer a question properly. And these are the people you pay millions to govern a small island?

Some of the defending points are redundant. Take for example, the papers published that 5,200 hectares more land to be reclaimed to accommodate the 7 million population. The problem is, of this 5,200 hectares, a major part is allocated for Pulau Tekong and Tuas, mainly non-residential areas to begin with. There is only a small consolation in having Tengah converted to a new town.

The unprofessional White Paper

If you ever bother to read the White Paper (with care, as the PAP wish you will), you’ll find some graphs, some charts, lots of pictures that shows up like a brochure persuading you to buy the product, in this case, the idea of bringing in more people. If you like colors, fluffy words, lots and lots of colors, yes, you may buy in the idea that the White Paper is good for you. However, upon closer scrutiny, it baffled me how un-scholarly (to quote from critic Donald Low) the White Paper is.

Sure it tells you some trends (with tonnes of assumptions) and such and I forgot how many times the words “growth, aspirations, high quality of life” appear over and over again. What is my aspiration? What is my children’s aspiration? What is the definition of high quality of life? What is good planning? What are good jobs? What is a good future?

All I see are these words but no concrete plan on how to achieve all that. Is the government telling me that by pulling in 30,000 foreign imports a year and building up more buildings and facilities to cater to the rising population will magically make the future oh-so-bright? And it amazed me when the PAP stewards will preach so religiously in parliament about the ‘good happy ending’ they envisioned but not how to get there.

The lack of trust based on poor track record

The PAP government has a very bad report card for the past decade or so in growing the nation. GDP is artificially raised via the Casinos, resorts and importing cheap labor. While GDP rises, so do the Gini coefficient while wage rate for the lower wage workers remain stagnant or even decline. This means the nation is not enjoying the growth evenly with only the upper elchelons benefitting. Given that productivity continues to stagnant or decline, where is the basis for growth in real income? Now that they have run out of ideas, they are tying to convince the nation that growth will moderate to 2-3% a year. Given the poor track record, I read with much suspicion when Minister of National Development, ex-Malaysian Khaw Boon Wan said:

How could it be? It’s already so crowded — 5.3 million — buses (and) trains. How is it possible to have 6.9 million population? The planners must be mad!’

“I think that’s a legitimate reaction and of course they ask good questions — which is, how can you be sure, more population, but quality of life will remain the same but in fact even better?

“Actually the answer is yes, it’s possible — you can have a larger population and yet have a better quality of life, but conditions must be right.

“So what are those conditions — one, there must be planning, which means good long-term planning and secondly, there must be good infrastructure that must be built ahead of demand.

“So if those conditions are there then you can (resolve) this seemingly difficult problem — how to achieve better quality of life despite a greater or larger population.

“And we are confident because we have time, because we are talking about the future — 2020, 2025, 2030 — and as planners our mantra is the Boy Scouts’ motto – ‘prepare for the worst but hope for the best’.

In a reply to the last statement, I quote from the great economist Keynes – “In the long run, we are all dead”. If we look over a long time horizon, any problem now will not be a problem (although there will be new problems). It’s a totally redundant statement. Since 2000, the PAP government had attempted to raise the population via importing immigrants. Given how smart those scholars are, it is without a doubt they will, or rather, should anticipate problems such as infrastructure stressing. How on earth can they be caught ‘off-guard’ on the population increase when they are the same government allowing all these foreigners into the country? Did the government turn on the tap, went to laze off for a smoke only to come back to find the pail overflowing? If so, it can only translate to extreme poor judgment, not working on the job, zero communication, poor coordination, or simply pure incompetency.

If the PAP government had failed in the last 13 years in ‘good planning’, what makes you think they can have better planning this time round? And how does Mr Khaw know it’s possible to achieve a higher quality of life with a larger population on limited land? It’s never been done before and it’s a disaster in today’s term looking back the policy to increase population a decade ago. What is his definition of high quality of life?

Speaking to reporters on Thursday morning, National Development Minister Khaw Boon Wan addressed concerns of affordability of BTO flats. He said prices of BTO flats will not rise with resale flat prices.

Mr Khaw added this has been the practice since he took over the ministry in 2011 and will continue till the housing market stabilises, and he pointed out that stable BTO prices also means government subsidies have also increased.

I have not done any research, but somehow I felt there is some correlation between BTO and resale market prices. Someone could enlighten me on this part. I would love to find out that I had perceived wrongly.

“In the next phase of development in Singapore, let us strive for quality. Quality living, quality worklife, quality environment, quality schools, quality pre-schools that have better balance in life. Quality in inter-people relationships, a much more gracious society.

“I think that is a life worth looking forward to and that is a vision that is within our grasp. We can achieve it with better resources and better attitude, it is totally within our grasp.

“This is not to say we don’t have current problems, overcrowding etc etc but you know we are addressing that as fast as we can and they will be resolved.

“Please do give us some time but even as we resolve current problems, our eyes must be on our future.

“So the key is planning and infrastructure and with time, we can achieve both, so please don’t worry.”

That’s all very nice words. I wonder whether he had some private lessons from Adam Khoo. Be clear: Land consumption is a zero sum game. With more people, you naturally have less space to yourself. If more space does not equate higher life quality, why would people pay a premium to stay in bigger houses? While the government will attempt to change travel patterns diverting to the north and south, such build up of buildings and facilities will take a long while. At the same time, the government is going to roll in 30,000 more people a year now when we are already facing gridlocks in facilities and more importantly transportation.

There is also a limit to how much the PAP government can change travel patterns. Take for example for leisure. The city and orchard road will continue to be the main ‘in’ places that people go for shopping and leisure. Look at the crowd during weekends and imagine it a lot more in the coming years. There will be longer waiting time in searching for a seat in the Food Courts, longer waiting time to look for a parking slot, higher cost of living given the higher aggregate demand for almost everything in the country. Inflation will rise and since the government had already announced a slower growth rate of 2-3%, in general terms your salary won’t be able to increase higher in real terms if productivity did not continue to rise. That of course means a decrease in life quality.

And for once, is it not strange for PAP, a party known to be mathematically precise and logical to ask you not to ponder on “quantity and statistics” but on something partially “intangible” like “quality”? Especially when some of the MPs (like the one that drank water from water tanks with dead bodies) are known to be extremely nicky picky in useless details. Obviously figures can do a frightening job persuading you to accept the White Paper. Just imagine, you are going to add 300,000 people a year over 17 years, which means changing 5,310,000 population to 7,000,000! And increase of almost 2,000,000 (i love rounding) Hmmm numbers doesn’t seem to tell any lies don’t they? So that would means if the MRT has 6 cabins, the train will need almost 3 more cabins in 17 years time! Either that or you can stand with your face practically pasted on someone else’s butt for the entire journey.

The PAP government was given too much time and too many chances but little has been done. What is worse is they are going to exacerbate the problem, all for the sake of cheap economic growth.

No change in population policy & the non-existent of a Singapore core.

There is, in fact, no change in the population policy of adding 30,000 immigrants to the country. The backlash in 2011 forces the PAP to trim down on the numbers and this White Paper gives them the ‘moral authority’ to continue doing what they have been doing all along.

It is also comical to see the PAP insisting there is a ‘Singapore core’ when Singaporeans only comprise slightly over 55% in their own country. Bear in mind that of that 55%, more than ½ a million came from the minting of new citizens. If we were to break down to true blue local born Singaporeans, we would have really become a minority in our country.

“Why be so xenophobic and not accept new citizens as part of the Singapore family?” some may ask. Again, I have to emphasize that xenophobia shouldn’t be swept off cleanly as a negative thing. Things happened for a reason. It’s more important to look at the reasons than go around labeling people xenophobic. New citizens still differ from Singapore born citizens, with various degrees of difference. Malaysian turn Singaporeans are most likely to be welcomed and assimilated due to the close similarities in culture, history and language. Southern Mainland Chinese may also exhibit some degrees of similarities to Chinese Singaporeans in terms of Chinese or dialect accents and culture, even facial features. But when a Northern Mainland Chinese stands beside a Singaporean Chinese, the difference is obvious. Oh well, at least to most Chinese. The same can be said of our Indian counterparts. Why is being xenophobic being demonized? You may say it’s bad to be xenophobic when only 1% of the population is different. But can you say it’s bad when almost 50% of the population is different? For a Singaporean not to be ‘xenophobic’ when foreigners populate half the country will spell zero attachment to the country in the first place. People voice out because they care. It is completely normal. Even Sweden, a nation long held as the model society, is experiencing xenophobia with a far less percentage of foreigners in their country.

In any culture or country, it is a basic human instinct to want to belong to a group that shares similarities. Will you feel comfortable having to adjust to social breakages and tensions in your every day life in your own backyard? How many times do our Malay and Indian fellow Singaporeans have to tolerate communicating with PRC Chinese who speaks almost no English? How many times do you find yourself having to expend energy speaking with India Indians or Pinoys who speaks ‘weird’ English (arguably, and I have to be fair, Singaporeans don’t speak the very best English around but then I would argue: speak as the Singaporeans speak in Singapore). I apologize if I offend any India Indians and Pinoys here, but admittedly, 8 out of 10 calls I receive each day about credit cards, insurance, spas etc are handled by one of your fellow friends and it can be quite challenging trying to understand what rattles off in rapids of AK16 burst of accented English behind those phones. I do understand from the other side of the coin, they might find it challenging to understand Singaporean’s weird “rolling up and down” (to quote from my American professor….hmm not that the Americans speaks the best English anyway) English scattered with local flavors. So here we have, a potential ground for miscommunication and conflict simply due to different accents, exacerbated in every day bombardment.

It is not possible to fully integrate new citizens. They bring with them a culture and behavior instilled in their formative years back in their countries and that will spell potentially huge social tension. No matter how much money the government is going to waste in coming up with programs to ‘teach’ these new citizens our way of life, it is not quite possible. Way of life cannot be taught. Such forced social engineering is redundant and ineffective. To make things worse, the constant absorbing of foreigners including minting of foreigners into new citizens will mean there is no time to integrate and assimilate. More of the foreign kind will come together and form their own enclaves. This is not what is going to happen. This is what HAD already happened. Just look around you and you’ll see. Do you really see new citizens and foreigners mixing with local born citizens? Is this not already a dangerous sign of social tension? A few hundreds of years ago, Americans populate and annexed California from Mexico. It is not an unreal thought of foreigners coming to dominate national policies as this divide continues to tore apart. Something even the PAP camp should worry about.

Sure, culture and way of life is not static, that I agree. But I also think it’s a natural reaction to protect one’s identity. Therefore I disapprove of anyone carelessly using the word ‘Xenophobia’ to demonize a person’s attempt to protect one’s culture or identity. It ignores the fact that there is something held on dearly by the incumbent. After all, isn’t this same sense of identity that gives us the meaning of a nation?

We have already witnessed the rise of hate speech and extreme anger on the Internet. The words used against foreigners are so extreme sometimes it is embarrassing to read as a Singaporean. Evidently, the rise in xenophobia will continue as the population issue gives rise to the ugly side of Singaporeans. The real danger comes when the tension flows into physical actions. Continuing to open the floodgate for foreigners is a time bomb waiting to explode.

]]>https://sgpublicpolicy.wordpress.com/2013/02/06/white-paper-ooo-very-scary/feed/2analyst70Reblog: Views on the AIM sagahttps://sgpublicpolicy.wordpress.com/2013/01/04/reblog-views-on-the-aim-saga/
https://sgpublicpolicy.wordpress.com/2013/01/04/reblog-views-on-the-aim-saga/#commentsFri, 04 Jan 2013 17:23:59 +0000http://sgpublicpolicy.wordpress.com/?p=891]]>There are many posts in the blogosphere discussing on the almost embarrassing act of a Prime Minister shooting out lawyer letters to Alex Au, the blogger of the popular Yawningbread.org. So I am not going to write more, since the questions are very much well known. I do, have a couple of posts from other social-political website that shares my sentiments and questions regarding the saga. So in my bid to promote similar views, I have them reblogged on my blog:

Stop being so childish, prime minister

It is barely the first week of the new year and we already have a threat of legal action from the People’s Action Party (PAP) / Government. PM Lee Hsien Loong had sent a lawyer’s letter to well known and very much respected blogger, activist and writer, Alex Au, demanding Alex removed his blog posts about Action Information Management, the PAP-owned company embroiled in the controversy over a certain computer system.

It is unclear whether PM Lee had sent the letter in his personal capacity, or as the prime minister or secretary general of the PAP. Whatever it is, the demand was clear – remove the allegedly offending post, and publish an apology, or else.

It is the same old tiring, tiresome, and tired tactic of issuing threats instead of engaging the issue or the alleged allegations. Threatening to take legal action over blog postings is, to be honest, infantile. It is childish because it does not befit the office of the prime minister to take offence so easily, when he has in his power all the resources to engage the issue, clarify any perceived falsehoods, or lay out the facts of the issue at hand. In short, he could very well take some time, have a bit of patience, and debate or discuss the issues and in the process enlighten everyone – and maybe gain a bit more respect too from his detractors.

But no. A lawyer’s letter was obviously deemed the better option.

Nonetheless, lets not let this threat of legal action distract us from the very important matter of the AIM/PAP controversy – for there are still many questions, serious questions, left unanswered, even after some 3 weeks since the matter came into the public spotlight.

Dr Teo Ho Pin, the coordinating chairman of the 14 PAP town councils, have yet to explain, for example, why he and the chairmen of the town councils, did not see the conflict of interest of awarding and selling the rights of the computer system to a PAP-owned company. If they did, why did they still choose to go ahead in awarding the contract to AIM?

He has also not disclosed how much was used to develop the software in the first place. Or indeed, how much AIM paid for the software. Why was AIM’s bid for the contract submitted, apparently, one week after the closing date of the tender – and accepted?

Alex raised some very pertinent matters too – such as the danger that there is nothing to stop the PAP from selling out other services to PAP-owned companies. By the way, the PAP has declined to reveal how many companies it owns. This too is a problem because any opposition party which wins a constituency may find itself having to deal with PAP-owned companies, as the Workers’ Party did with AIM in Aljunied.

It is thus important, in the name of full accountability, that the PAP disclose the number of companies it has, and the nature of their business.

In the case of AIM, the PAP declined to disclose its past business dealings, or other details about the company.

So, in spite of the threat of legal action by the prime minister, these questions are being asked even more loudly now – and it would do the PAP a whole lot of good if it addressed each one openly.

And the best way to do so is in a “live” press conference in the presence of the mainstream media and the alternative media. Take the matter head-on, clear all doubts, lay out all facts.

That is, if the PAP has nothing to hide, which I am sure is the case.

And it really – I mean, really – is time to lay down the hatchet.

Engage Singaporeans. Engage the issue. Engage the questions – and not engage lawyers to issue threats.

I refer to the newspaper report ‘PAP explains software sale to AIM’ (link: http://goo.gl/6VMO9). The report states that ‘The PAP declined to comment on the number of companies it owns’.

The PAP being a political party is subjected to the political donations act; an act which the PAP dominated Parliament passed as being integral in safeguarding the integrity of the domestic political process, and to ensure that political organisations are not funded by foreign elements or sources.

Since the Party is subjected to the said Act, it is important for the Party to give details of the companies the Party own, for only that will give the general public the confidence that the ruling party is not above the integrity expected of other organisations involved in the local political process, and that it is not funded by foreign elements or sources.

I write to you as Party Chairman to shed more light on this issue.

Thank you.”

AIM (PAP-owned company) too, like its owner, has declined to give details of its track record and business dealings. This silence, is extremely disturbing, and I hope I get a response from PAP’s chairman soon.

In the midst of the unraveling of this issue, some have accused Workers’ Party of keeping relative silence because they too like the PAP, have engaged their own company to manage the Aljunied-Hougang Town Council. That accusation is not true.

While the PAP has acknowledged that AIM is owned by PAP, FM Solution & Services Pte Ltd (FMSS) is not owned by WP, and also no WP member has any interest in FMSS (see THIS). Yes, the General Manager of FMSS may have formerly been the secretary of Hougang Town Council, but where the town councils are so politicised, I can understand why.

With the PAP deciding to not disclose which are the companies they own, you don’t know which are the ones the PAP owns and which they don’t. If WP is not careful about who they award the town council management contract to, and if it gets awarded to a PAP-owned company, that company may potentially sabotage WP’s town council operations in order to reduce WP’s electability in the same constituency in the next General Election.

The PAP being the ruling party, and being the governing party for over 50 years, must first set fairness as a benchmark. Where that is not established, whether WP’s action to award contract to FMSS was beyond reproach or not, becomes very subjective. And no, it’s not a competition about who’s more wrong, or where the greater conflict of interest lies. The fact is, WP does not own any companies – not one of the other political parties do. But PAP does, and no one knows how many such companies they own.

WP, and all the other opposition parties try to serve the citizens of Singapore, in an uneven field created by the PAP; but they compete with more integrity than the PAP.

****

All in all, the questions raised are logical. As a citizen, it is my right to question the questionable. How the heck can one sounds ‘in-defamtory’ when the PAP is not giving clear details on their explanation (and it took them more than 3 days to come up with an answer??? That itself is questionable!)? PAP has a chance to showcase their integrity and transparency by coming forward to explain with concrete evidence that Alex’s posts are defamatory. Yet, they stupidly choose to undertake the perceived negatively action of throwing libel suits. What they achieved in the end is probably a slight relief of having suggestive posts being taken down but end up being a loud hailer for deeper questioning of the AIM saga.

Dear Prime Minister, seriously, grow up. Give me the answers that we citizens demand and deserve. As a political party, in the name of transparency, which the PAP has always loudly acclaimed, disclose all the companies the PAP owns or have vested interest in. How else do you expect citizens to believe there’s no dealings being undertaken that could run against the interest of Singaporeans? Given the recent episodes of corruption and immoral coverings of senior civil servants, including a MP/ Speaker of the House, where is the guarantee that such bad apples or dealings don’t exist within the PAP party? After all, didn’t the ruling party absorb most of their ‘talents’ from the exact same pool?

]]>https://sgpublicpolicy.wordpress.com/2013/01/04/reblog-views-on-the-aim-saga/feed/2analyst70Mr Lui should just shut uphttps://sgpublicpolicy.wordpress.com/2012/12/14/mr-lui-should-just-shut-up/
https://sgpublicpolicy.wordpress.com/2012/12/14/mr-lui-should-just-shut-up/#commentsFri, 14 Dec 2012 17:29:09 +0000http://sgpublicpolicy.wordpress.com/?p=837]]>That is my kind advice. Repeated attempts to explain something that sounds wrong only made it sound even worse.

If raising fares also meant improving service standards, can the Minister of Transport explain how is it that service levels continue to deteriorate after all these years of fare increase? Since past increment in fares actually translate into worsening service standards, history obviously shows that a rise in fares will not improve service standards. Service standard is also not simply achieved by paying bus captains more. It is a combination of reasonable fares, timeliness of buses, training, bus captain’s personal service, efficient planning of bus routes etc.

If the minister is concern about ‘keeping transport operators commercially viable’, he need not worry. SMRT and SBS continue to earn great profits and even manage to generously give out dividends to shareholders after a year of breakdowns and accidents; thanks to it’s monopolistic position and PAP’s generous transfer of $1.1 billion from the tax payers’ pockets (that could have been used for public projects) to capital owners, investors and of course, the bulk of which goes to Temasek Holdings. And can someone remind Cambridge educated Mr Lui commercially viable does not equate huge profits (with the cheek to hand out dividends after a government bail out)?

Then Mr Lui goes on to say that having leaving the public transport operator privatized would meant more efficiency and depend less on tax-payers’ money. Is it any more efficient now? Has it not also depended on tax payers’ money? So despite government subsiding the public has to pay even more? Ever heard of double taxation? Is there any difference in money coming directly from the tax payers’ pockets and indirectly as subsidy from the government? Either way it’s financed by the public. The only nightmare is taxpayers are paying it BOTH ways. How is the current situation of the government subsidizing $1,100,000,000.00 any different from being nationalized?

What this smart minister said doesn’t seem to make much sense: “He said taking the populist approach of avoiding fare increases completely and pushing it onto public transport operators will give the operators no incentive to be efficient and provide better service for commuters.” In order to survive, the operators have to think of other ways if fares are not increased. Sometimes creative ways. Sometimes it may simply be a reduction in costs in other aspects, such as drop out some useless board of directors (see link, and think for yourself how has that entourage of government linked personnel contributed anything constructive in ensuring the past failures did not happen) and use that millions in director fees saved to increase the pay of the bus captains. I’ll tell you what would not give the operators any incentive to improve standards–Government guarantee of survival and profitability. Not just being ‘commercially viable’, but ‘huge profits’. Being a monopoly in train transport and free money from the government going into the billions, why should SMRT has the motivation or incentive to become better?

]]>https://sgpublicpolicy.wordpress.com/2012/12/14/mr-lui-should-just-shut-up/feed/8analyst70Pathetic attempts by the local media in shifting the attention of PAP’s disgracehttps://sgpublicpolicy.wordpress.com/2012/12/14/pathetic-attempts-by-the-local-media-in-shifting-the-attention-of-paps-disgrace/
https://sgpublicpolicy.wordpress.com/2012/12/14/pathetic-attempts-by-the-local-media-in-shifting-the-attention-of-paps-disgrace/#respondFri, 14 Dec 2012 16:46:16 +0000http://sgpublicpolicy.wordpress.com/?p=806]]>Just look at how that poor Laura Ong being singled out by PAP’s extension, the PA or her former employer and having the local media attempting to paint her as a loose materialistic lady double timing on 2 men, one being the horny Michael Palmer and another innocent guy. Why should anyone be interested or concern about Ms Laura Ong? When did the local media start to behave like Paparazzi? All the while, nothing much negative was splashed on a former MP and Speaker of the House in Parliament. I should be concern about a half a million dollars a year MP & Speaker of the House who had displayed poor judgement, discipline and self-constraint, contrary to how the various PAP MPs were being trumpeted as capable, impartial, responsible people during Election. While expected, it reflected badly on the ruling party. Citizens are getting more savvy and are reading between the lines of news reported by media ranked amongst the worst in the world in terms of freedom and impartiality. Riding onto such old stances will not help PAP but makes it looks extremely despicable instead. Oh wait, isn’t that already taken as a fact?]]>https://sgpublicpolicy.wordpress.com/2012/12/14/pathetic-attempts-by-the-local-media-in-shifting-the-attention-of-paps-disgrace/feed/0analyst70And let the troubles rollhttps://sgpublicpolicy.wordpress.com/2012/12/12/and-let-the-troubles-roll/
https://sgpublicpolicy.wordpress.com/2012/12/12/and-let-the-troubles-roll/#commentsWed, 12 Dec 2012 15:44:24 +0000http://sgpublicpolicy.wordpress.com/?p=802]]>The SMRT saga continues and all I see are denials and denials and denials. Where are the transparency and conversation the government sought to have? Where are the substances in all these conversation?

Touching down back to this sunny (or rather, rainy) island, the first thing the taxi driver yanked about is the failure of SMRT. Never mind that the recent sagas had created a deep distrust in the government handling of a private transport operator that had conflicting invested interest by the government itself, the transport minister goes on to showcase his EQ deficiency and insensitiveness in announcing the need to raise fares in order for SMRT to offer higher pay to attract Singaporeans to work as drivers.

And to the great embarrassment to any citizen of this ‘fine’ country, we have $15,000 a month MPs (see link) who are incapable of stringing logical answers and statements, flabbergasting in a stammer of nonsensical and heavily Singlish flavored replies that speaks zero confidence, absence of factual evidence, and simply devoid of intelligence. One can easily sense the great denial going on. When you can’t convince, you try to confuse, even though that’s a rather bad job done. I would rather hire Sarah Paulin as an MP. At least she knows the simple logic of Russia and Alaska being pretty near one another. How on earth did the great PAP ended up with minions like these?

Firstly, SMRT got someone who had not a single day experience in transport management to head a major transport company that offers public bus services. How is that risk assessed or approved is anyone’s guess. A few years down the road, it became obvious that Singapore Mass Rapid Transport is turning into SuperMaRkeT Inc with all that focus on retail rather than the core business in transport. Sure, revenue increased, which is a good thing for shareholders, notwithstanding that fares were still being raised in the face of “ever increasing cost in fuel and wages” despite increasing profits. Consequentially, failures of the train system came one after another, another after another.

The answer provided by the Ministry of Transport, which seems to have been sleeping on for years, is to spend more tax payer’s money in creating some random council to assist an entire ministry in solving SMRT’s problem. Why then do we even need a ministry for in the first place? Are all these people working in the ministry so useless they have to get additional resources to remedy something that they should be overseeing all this while? Lawyer fees were incurred, effort and thousands of hours later, it simply culminated in a muffed blaming game; in the hope of boomeranging the responsibility on the already guilty transport operator away from the government. What I see is simply a show, a boring show by script writers who slaved away in MediaCorp’s cubicle box paid for by tax payers.

Turning back to an ex-military 3-star general to solve the current issue signified the depth of buried head the government had. Further stepping up on the bureaucracy ladder, this ex-general intend to rope in his soon-to-be-retired colleagues in the military. Isn’t it funny yet somehow familiar at how the military becomes the magic pill that “should” set things right. It’s simply a matter of going back to how things used to work before all that drama. Since things were fine headed by an ex-military honcho in the past, it must work in today’s time right? I’m baffled by the simplicity solution the government sought to create. Anyone who had experience in the military will know that it is not the most efficient organization around. Appointing people who used to direct tanks and heavy vehicles to manage a nation-wide transport system isn’t really the wisest thing if you ask me. To be fair, time should reveal how capable our military is.

While the government stands by the view that public transport operators should be left privatized in order to achieve ‘efficiency’, they are slapping themselves in their face by indirectly admitting that the government, as a public serving body, is not efficient. Well, that’s pretty obvious going by the waste of tax payer’s money in the recent Procurement saga where there’s no logistical expert, no due diligence and no controls on spending money on the various ministries and statutory boards. How privatize is SMRT in the first place when the government is free to insert their own people as and when it deemed necessary? If simply being privatized equates efficiency and profitability, maybe the ministers, with their highly decorated accolades and degrees from prestigious universities care to explain the reason SMRT failed, or any other privatized firms such as the major banks failures in recent years.

Although “privatized”, the government goes on to use $1.1 billion of tax payer’s money to assist these transport operators to upgrade their infrastructure and procure new vehicles. $1.1 billion, that’s 1,100 million. It’s not a small figure mind you. It is equivalent to more than 8 years SMRT’s profit. How is such a huge amount approved so easily and so fast amazed me. All the more amazing when the PAP has always been reluctant to spend even an additional couple of millions more on healthcare and aid for the unfortunate.

In another showcase of efficiency, or rather, the lack of thorough debate and discussion with a fast approval in Parliament, the citizens of this island state are coerced to bail out a company that feeds profits to the government. In theory, privatized companies do perform better as they have a bottom line to take care of. By taking away that urgency to take care of bottom line, the government is signaling that SMRT will be guaranteed survival. Well, not only survival, the government goes an extra length to signify their willingness to guarantee profitability, even at the expense of the real shareholders—the citizens funding the entire infrastructure upgrade and bus procurement. The issue is not a matter of market failure and treating it with a useless tagline of ‘privatization’ when it is in essence heavily subsidized by public funds. The real issue is a Principle-agent problem, exacerbated by common interests between the government’s investment arm and the problematic company in question. In essence, tax payers are paying for their own buses and bus captains and paying on top of it extra premium to ensure shareholders (ie Temasek Holdings) get their fatty pay check and bonuses. What choices do the common man and woman down the street has?

P.S. At the time PAP experienced WP’s episode of ‘unfaithful MPs’, we see Low Thai Kiang reacting to crafty interview questions (read between the lines how those questions posed are designed to bait certain answers) with ease and style. Why can’t the PAP ever learn their PR skills?

]]>https://sgpublicpolicy.wordpress.com/2012/12/12/and-let-the-troubles-roll/feed/2analyst70Bloody Jokerhttps://sgpublicpolicy.wordpress.com/2012/11/08/bloody-joker/
https://sgpublicpolicy.wordpress.com/2012/11/08/bloody-joker/#commentsThu, 08 Nov 2012 17:27:44 +0000http://sgpublicpolicy.wordpress.com/?p=798]]>Will be doing a bit of flying, so won’t be writing much any time soon. Did I mentioned I respect and love (not in the literary sense though) Ngiam Tong Dow? We need people who are decisive and give straight answers and honest opinions. Enough of vagueness and hiding around the bush. You hear that NUS? Why is a university of such standing be afraid of announcing any punishments met to a student who have no qualms or social logic in publishing sex videos and destroying years of reputations hard built by hard working honest university employees and students?

SINGAPORE – Instead of giving scholarships to foreigners who might not sink roots here, the country’s resources could be better used to help Singaporean undergraduates, some of whom have to work part-time to support themselves financially, former top civil servant Ngiam Tong Dow said yesterday.

Speaking to reporters on the sidelines of a higher education dialogue hosted by the National University of Singapore (NUS), Mr Ngiam, who is an NUS Pro-Chancellor, also remarked that NUS law student and ASEAN scholar Alvin Tan Jye Yee should be expelled.

Mr Tan made headlines last month after he and his girlfriend posted explicit videos and pictures of themselves on his blog. The Malaysian has been disciplined by the university but NUS was tight-lipped about the nature of the punishment.

While he acknowledged the need for overseas talents, Mr Ngiam argued against having too many foreign undergrads on Singapore-sponsored scholarships. “That is very unfair… That is nonsense… you have to import talent but how many of them want to stay back here?” said Mr Ngiam.

Over the years, the percentage of foreign student intake in universities here has fallen from about 20 per cent to the current 16 per cent. The Government has said that the proportion will be cut to 15 per cent by 2015.

************

I have mentioned before in my post, I have seen too much so called scholars that are not achieving the kind of academic standing that is fit for a ‘scholar’. I don’t know how you see it. To me, a scholar shouldn’t be anything less than a first class (under NUS’s grading system; or summa-cum-laude under SMU’s US grading system). The worst you should get as a scholar should be second-upper, nothing worse off.

]]>https://sgpublicpolicy.wordpress.com/2012/11/08/bloody-joker/feed/2analyst70Absenthttps://sgpublicpolicy.wordpress.com/2012/11/04/absent/
https://sgpublicpolicy.wordpress.com/2012/11/04/absent/#respondSun, 04 Nov 2012 17:10:47 +0000http://sgpublicpolicy.wordpress.com/?p=790]]>Sorry my dear readers of this blog. I haven’t been writing as I am not in the country due to work commitments. I have received some emails and comments to ask me to continue to write. Thank you for your support. Of course I will continue to write, that is only when I got back to Singapore.

Being away from the country, I haven’t been able to follow the news happening back home. The only news I got recently that appears on my Facebook feed is the article on a taxi driver earning $7,000 a month by ST that is causing much hoo-har over the reporter and the authenticity of the report.

Personally, I have no comments over this article. I have always wonder why would Straits Times always publish articles like these that don’t really give readers much value. So what if you know that taxi drivers can earn $7,000 so long as they ‘work hard’? Quit your current job and become a taxi driver? The article smells of propaganda that screams ‘work hard and you’ll succeed in any field’. And I thought moral education stops after primary school. Obviously someone down there (well, technically, I live in a building with many floors and levels compared to some houses that has 4 levels at most) doesn’t think so. Or maybe it could justify some extra honey for cab companies after the fare rise some months ago, since this article must proved that taxi drivers are having a ‘good life’?

What I do know is ST’s penchant for publishing ‘good-morals-feel-oh-so-good’ articles that tried to influence and moderate your perception of the country’s economic growth and, of course, the good work of the government’s policies, whether or not it actually works doesn’t really matter. Try comparing it to, say, the New York Times or the Economist, Straits Times reads more like something Mickey Mouse and friends would publish in Disneyland. It always end with happily ever after.